November 10, 2006

Bases of a Natural Morality

Atheists, including agnostics, are constantly reviled by theists for being amoral, cynical and in short the source of all evil. Christians don't know who to blame for something going the wrong way? Blame atheism, the Enlightment and evolution. I've seen some twisted folk saying that atheists are even worse than Muslims - and this being on Little Green Footballs should give you an idea of the depth of hatred and contempt.

A reason for this behaviour is reaction to the ridiculous and obnoxious figure of the militant atheist, those convinced that their position is the only logical and rational one and hell-bent on proselytizing and mocking religious beliefs.

There is still no way to reach a conclusion about god using only logic and reason; whatever the position, it takes some act of faith. Agnosticism maybe less so, but it's an intermediate position that leaves many unsatisfied.

But there's a lot of atheists who instead are upstanding citizens and moral people, and respect theists even across the wide gap of worldview.

I think that the recent rise of atheism is in great part due to an increase of scientific knowledge. When more and more aspects of the world become clear, it is also more and more difficult to accept divine or supernatural intervention. We can explain lightning, earthquakes, floods, droughts, comets and epidemies without needing a god. In this view, evolution does indeed have a special place, because it says that from a biological standpoint men aren't all that special; just monkeys with little hair but good hands and an impressive brain. While christianity and other religions instead regard mankind as god's greatest achievement.

But if we deny the existence of god, or at least is capacity/willingness to intervene, where can we find the bases for morality? I say, even in nature itself, if we look at it properly.

To start with, the idea that evolution is anti-life is bull, to put it clearly. There is an assumption so obvious and basic in the evolutive model that non-one bothers to state it clearly: living beings must reproduce in order to evolve. If a species fails to reproduce, it will be extinct no matter how wonderful it is (though humans may be close to cross this border becoming able to build artificial lifeforms).

Going further, I maintain that most of the precepts regarded as god-given can in fact be explained through evolutive adaptation. Back when early humans and even hominides lived in tribal societies, orderly tribes which followed some rules had a definite advantage over more chaotic ones. Because observing rules increases trust between the members of a tribe, and the capacity to work as a team. While hunters are out in the wilderness, they don't have to worry too much about someone else stealing their possessions back in the village, or bedding their women. This means a more effective hunt, and thus more food for the whole tribe which in turn can prosper.

And in an historical perspective, societies which are based on family and values are generally more robust and succesfull than the vacuous and hedonistic ones (notice that in this context succesfull does not mean good).

Also Kevin wrote about atheism recently, and as he and others point out in the comments, while humanism produced atrocities the past of religion is far from spotless as well. It would seem that humans can always find an excuse to kill and pillage. Also Paul Kurtz on the Skeptical Inquirer dealt with closely related arguments.

I think that the real damaging positions are the rejection of reason and objective reality, which can be found both among atheists and theists; collectivism (that is also a severe lack of confidence in the individual); hedonism and vapid egocentrism; lack of self-sacrifice.

It is possible to reject all this through reason, examining which societies and ideologies succeeded and which didn't. Yes, faith can be a stronger motivator than mere rationality, but it does not always motivate to do the good thing. Many Islamic suicide terrorists are truly steadfast in their faith, I'm sure.

Or, you can see all this from another point of view. I am unable to believe (and it's not that I never tried) but I also want to live as a decent person, and not let my society crumble to dust. So I'd rather find a valid foundation for my worldview.

This post (which isn't great, I know. My inspiration is still wobbly) does nto want to be exaustive, but only to shed some light on the possible foundations of ethics that do not require divine pronunciation, at the same time avoiding the shortcomings of humanism as we know it.

November 07, 2006

Perceptions, Wrong

Coming back to Italy, I realized something that I already knew, but only now actually impacted on me.

It is the perception of the European - Italian in particular - situation that Americans have. Reading any random LGF thread, for example, one would get the impression that in all of Europe it is prohibited to mention the nationality/ethnicity of criminals.

Well, not here. Most media give regularly, clearly and sometimes even prominently the nationality of criminals and perpetrators. Headlines such as "Moroccan rapes woman" are rather common (sadly, because these incidents are not so rare either). Italian media use very sparingly politically correct terms like "youths" or "Asians" (there are no equivalent Italian words anyway). Sometimes, the vague term of extracomunitario/i is used to indicate all of those coming from outside the EU (which was previously called European Community, hence the term). Following this to letter, also Americans would be extracomunitari, but this term is never applied to them in practice.

A perp's religion is not mentioned too often, but that's because it is also redundant in many cases: most people already know that Egypt or Algeria are Muslim countries.

Also public debate regarding Islam and related questions is far from banned. I've seen talk shows on TV and heard them on radio about these issues; hosts are generally polite but don't refrain from criticizing Islam. And a popular position is that immigrants should adapt to the culture of the host country, not the other way around. Of course, without the protection of a First Amendement (and a Second too, I may add...) there is a risk of having to face trial for expressing an opinion - especially when said opinion is expressed boorishly. And this is a problem indeed.

And finally, after a long time, natality rates in north Italy are rising - and immigrants (all of them, not only Muslims) account for only a 10 - 15% of the total births. On the anedoctal side, I can state that Italian children have been a rare sight in my village for most of the 80's and 90's, but now are more common.

October 12, 2006

This is Still a Test

Hey lads & gals, missed me? Yeah, an awful lot I see.

Things are OK here in Italy; weather is unusually warm for October and mushrooms are sprouting in the wood up my mountains. Life in Parma is quite good, but the kind and amount of bureaucracy I had to face is staggering. The Patriot Act? It's nothing compared to the stuff I had to go through here. Next time I chat up a girl, I'll tell her my codice fiscale - a sort of social security/national insurance number...

September 27, 2006

Modelling Traps

A serious problem with the climate change - or AGW - research is that it relieas very heavily on mathematical climate models. Even studies aimed at disproving the hypothesis often do it.

Now, mathematical modelling is usaed routinely in a number of different fields; so why is it a problem for climate research? The problem is testing these models.

In the field I'm familiar with - chemical engineering - models are used to design, study and optimize chemical reactors and other units like distillation columns.

These models employ several equations to describe all the phenomena occurring in the specific piece of equipment, and work on user-introduced data to provide the required output - for example, composition of the reactor effluent.

Testing these models is not exactly trivial, but it is amply feasible both as a matter of cost and complexity (for an university or corporation); moreover, there are plenty of conned and bribed students willing and eager to do the research work. Experimental conditions are set and mantained within narrow limits, and the performance of the unit observed closely.

For example, the conditions to set for a chemical reactor are its dimensions and geometry; amount and type of catalyst; temperature and pressure; feed flowrate and composition (not all of them all the times, tho). What is measured generally is effluent composition, but also temperature profiles in the catalyst bed are of interest. How the reactor responds to a change in experimental conditions is most interesting; the parameters of interest are then varied one at a time to study its effect.

If what is observed in reality differs from what the model predicts (within error limits), it means that something is amiss. Assuming that no mistakes have been made (and assumption that isn't so automatic), a discrepance from reality means that either the model is not applicable in certain conditions, or it is completely wrong.

If a model gives results that are only slightly in disagreement with reality... well, that's a more difficult situation. Usually the model is still employed until something better comes out, and with the warning that predictions may be unreliable.

It should be obvious that climate models cannot be tested in a controlled environment. We cannot take a terracompatible planet, endorse it with a vast array of sensors and measurement equipment, record a suitable baseline and then start fiddling around with its atmosphere (and its star, too) to see what exactly happens to the planetary climate.

The only thing that can be done with climate model is to verify how well they reproduce past climate (and hope they will worke the same in the future; extrapolation is justly regarded as a last ditch technique). Now, we're not even sure of what datasets and what data treatment are the most appropriate for past climate; when the result of models are confronted with, for example, smoothed temperature records there are always are discrepancies. The models are sometimes early, sometimes late; they generally reproduce the main features of the curve, but often miss small ones.

Where does all this leave us, then? It leaves us with a lot of uncertainty.

A certain warming has been observed, but even what part of this warming is true, and what parts are due to variations in land use (the famous urban heat-island effect) and data treatment artifacts, is still largely unknown. And even the true warming can be ascribed to different factors, of which anthropogenic greenhouse gases are only one (personally, I am convinced that there is some contribution from them, anyway).

When it comes to predicting future climate, I think that no models are reliable enough to justify taking action - especially when action is a strongly ideologized treaty such as Kyoto. I think that energy efficiency measures and "reducing carbon footprint" should be taken only if they make economical sense overall (knowing that the tragedy of the commons, the prisoner's dilemma and market failures are still there...) and not just because it seems well and good to do so.

Comments are open to registered Blogger users only.Comments are tentatively open. Undesired comments may be deleted at the exclusive discretion of the blog administrator. However, the administrator does not necessarily endorse views expressed in the remaining comments.